?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A readme file

On Corante's Blogging News, there's a note of a lovely Readme disclaimer appropriate to most weblogs. It all made good sense and made me think a bit, mostly about the fact that it made good sense. And anyways, I like looking at pretty shades of blue.

Update #1: I also took a look at the Blogger's Manifesto today. Like the readme, full of interesting, thought-provokingness. (If perhaps less serious)

And yes, I'd especially like to hear from long-lost friends like you, innostrantsa!

Update #2: The Manifesto link works now. Sorry about that.

Update #3: I can't figure out where I found the Manifesto link. Questions: is this one ancient or new? One author mentions it on June 17th. At least someone's taking it seriously:
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] http://www.saltedwound.com/?p>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

On <a href="http://www.corante.com/blogging/archives20020623.html#1847">Corante's Blogging News</a>, there's a note of a lovely <a href="http://www.namaii.com/readme/">Readme disclaimer</a> appropriate to most weblogs. It all made good sense and made me think a bit, mostly about the fact that it made good sense. And anyways, I like looking at pretty shades of blue.

Update #1: I also took a look at the <a href="http://bloggermanifesto.com/">Blogger's Manifesto</a> today. Like the readme, full of interesting, thought-provokingness. (If perhaps less serious)

And yes, I'd especially like to hear from long-lost friends like you, <lj user="innostrantsa">!

Update #2: The Manifesto link works now. Sorry about that.

Update #3: I can't figure out where I found the Manifesto link. Questions: is this one ancient or new? One author mentions it on <a href="http://www.benhammersley.com/archives/00000798.html"> June 17th</a>. At least someone's taking it seriously: <a href=""http://www.saltedwound.com/?p=803"">SaltedWound</a>., perhaps Of course, there are a slew of other manifestos. Anyways, doesn't much matter. (Even if irony does repeated go over my head if not clearly marked.)

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
brennabe
Jun. 24th, 2002 06:38 pm (UTC)
Oops? I don't remember writing a bloggers manifesto but the link goes to my journal.... I would like to read the manifesto though.
brennabe
Jun. 24th, 2002 06:40 pm (UTC)
or rather it goes to the "home" site. Depending on how I access this page will depend on where it links to. Sounds like a neat piece of code but unfortunately not leading to the intended target!
owlfish
Jun. 24th, 2002 06:49 pm (UTC)
Hmm... looks like my error was in putting double-quotation marks around the link. No wonder it doesn't work. The URL is correct, however: bloggermanifesto.com. I'll fix the link!
bitterpickle
Jun. 24th, 2002 09:21 pm (UTC)
"disclaimer"
I think both of those things are jokes.
But at least I think the Blogger Manifesto was meant as a joke.
(Deleted comment)
bitterpickle
Jun. 25th, 2002 07:48 am (UTC)
Re: "disclaimer"
"But I still think the Readme was meant seriously. It's aiming at an idealism that isn't as funny because it's more feasible."

Oh, I'm sure it was meant seriously, and that's what makes it all the more preposterous.
More feasible? More feasible than what - person being able to fly under their own power?
If you really think it's possible to not only control the actions of others but also their thoughts, opinions, and to stifle those opinions, you're living in the same dreamworld they are.
I don't know how it could not be obvious to you that it's ridiculous... It's tantamount to telling people that they should not only not look at the front page of the newspaper, but also not have an opinion on it and not tell anyone else about what's on the front page of the newspaper. That's insanity!
owlfish
Jun. 25th, 2002 08:11 am (UTC)
Re: "disclaimer"
It's more feasible than the Blogger's Manifesto - which would make sense, wouldn't it, since it's usually rather difficult to live up to the "standards" of a parody. That doesn't make it feasible in any more absolute sense, no.

The point of a set of guidelines like this readme file isn't to control other's actions in the way a puppeteer would a puppet. It's to (ideally) make clear what the gamerules the author of the page in question would like his/her readers to follow. That doesn't mean it'll work. And hey, if they cared enough to follow their own file of that ilk, then, if enough people didn't follow it, they do have some recourse to action: take down their site entirely; or at least make their postings uncommentable. Of course, I presume there are plenty of people (such as its initial author) who really do try to use it seriously... when it comes down to it, though, it's a website. (aka the whole NPR debate recently).

I have a hard-to-believe example of this from yesterday's news readings: a newspaper writer discovered that many of his newspaper's readers had no clue that there was any difference whatsoever between the news articles and the columnists' opinions. Sure, you may argue there is no effective difference, but the intent is certainly different: one attempts fact, one is intended as opinion. How is this relevant? The newspaper intends (albeit without a readme file since it's generally considered unnecessary) that its readers read the columnists as one person's opinions and the news articles as fact, and tries to at least nominally mark the difference between them with bylines and contact-details for the former. The article is here.
bitterpickle
Jun. 25th, 2002 08:40 am (UTC)
Re: "disclaimer"
"The point of a set of guidelines like this readme file isn't to control other's actions in the way a puppeteer would a puppet"

The tone of that readme certainly gave that impression.
They never once said "this is what I'd like", they said "this is what YOU SHOULD DO & NOT DO!"
And tone is SO important if you're trying to persuade someone... which is their only hope in what they're proposing, since they can't force it. So that makes them doubly foolish.

And I don't think the difference between columns & articles belongs logically in this.
When I mentioned newspapers, I meant in the sense that newspapers are PUBLIC. Not whether or not their site or the readme was opinion or fact, but that their site is in PUBLIC, like a newspaper.
It makes no difference if something is opinion or fact if it's in the newspaper - you can't expect people to treat it as private. That's how I was comparing newspapers to the web.
owlfish
Jun. 24th, 2002 10:31 pm (UTC)
Re: "disclaimer"
Whether or no it's a joke, it still makes some intriguing points. And as to it's joke-intention, very interesting question! Let's see... one of the authors has as his/her current goal a Daypop #1 position. And the one comment on it votes with you, it's a joke. Contributor #2 to the Manifesto doesn't have it obviously mentioned on his site, and certainly isn't proud enough of it to list it under bio info. And clearly it makes NO sense when it claims it's aiming for being an official policy. As if that were feasible!

Conclusion: Yes, you're right. But I still think the Readme was meant seriously. It's aiming at an idealism that isn't as funny because it's more feasible.
bitterpickle
Jun. 25th, 2002 07:51 am (UTC)
Re: "disclaimer"
Oh, I realize now that you meant it's more feasible than the manifesto. But that isn't a fair comparison at all.
The Manifesto is set out as something that people would pledge to, willingly agree to. That readme is meant as a tyrannical attempt to change the very nature of the internet, and control the way people view things displayed publicly.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )